SAFT: Everything kasi is relative. What may be liberal to you may not be liberal to me. So ultimately, the (Senate) President will make a ruling, then if the body disagrees with it, there'll be a voting.

Q: Sir, hindi kayo lawyer, can you comment on proof daw is necessary, substantial evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, what do you think of those requirements?

SAFT: The fact that it was never specified in the Constitution and in even on our rules, ibig sabihin niyan discretion 'yan ng senador. It's the senator's discretion what burden of proof or quantum of evidence he or she will use.

SAFT: Ideally dapat, pero syempre you should expect both sides na palagi nilang ii-insist kung ano ang ikakabuti ng side nila, kung san sila makakalamang ii-insist nila 'yan. So every step of the way we should expect that from their lawyers, that's what they do.

SAFT: Alam niyo ho in my limited experience sa hudikatura bilang akusado, mahigit pitong taon akong nago-observe ng mga trial eh. Alam niyo ho 'yung mga judges, they can ask the witnesses directly just to satisfy kung mayroon silang mga gustong impormasyon, so ganoon 'yan. It's very important for us to get as much as information we need in order for us to arrive at a decision na buong-buo.

Q: So what you've been saying Sir, is that there's no limitation as to the manner of questioning these witnesses?

SAFT: Not based on our rules, everybody was asked to observe political neutrality, so that's it.

SAFT: Very interesting, 'yun lang I was citing this little experience I had with the judiciary as an accused for seven years and we have observed during that time kung ano ang mga demeanor ng huwes, ng mga defense at prosecution lawyers during that time, so all of these is not new to me. Medyo kritikal kasi 'yung issue na pinag-uusapan kaya in the caucus earlier, we decided na bigyan ng panahon ito to exhaust all the arguments today so we can rule it out tomorrow.

SAFT: The fact na hindi siya nakalagay sa Konstitusyon at even in our rules ibig sabhin noon it is left to the individual senator kung ano ang hinahanap niya to convince him to acquit or to convict. So hindi pwede i-impose yan, so even we agreed on a particular standard of proof, hindi parin binding yun kasi what is preponderance of evidence to you might be beyond reasonable doubt to me.

SAFT: Yes, ang desiyson kanina is to let everybody present their arguments in relation in this particular issue.

On flexibility and liberality of rules

Q: Dapat po bang i-relax ng Senado ang rules?

SAFT: Subjective din 'yan and relative. So let's decide on it in a case to case basis, as it comes. So far pinapupurihan naman ang mga rulings ng ating Senate President so what is there to complain about?

Q: Bukas magpre-presenta na po ng memorandum ang prosecution team para po both sides will be heard. Do you expect the body to decide on that issue tomorrow?

SAFT: Actually wala naman specific rules about it. Ito nga 'yung sinasabi ko noon pa na this is actually a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. How can you win their hearts and minds if you're alienating them by language alone? Dapat itong prosekusyon at depensa hindi lang ang kinukumbinsi nila yung mga senator-judges, pati 'yung public at large. They need to win them over to their side. And the best way to do that is by speaking the language they know.

SAFT: Alam niyo ang kagandahan ngayon, in this Senate I am privileged to witness and enjoin, talagang everybody is concerned with the institution and its implications sa bawat desisyon. So every argument is presented and counter-argument, we can vote on it kung dapat pagbotohan or minsan hindi lang nagde-decide, let things be. ' Yun 'yung nakikita ko, walang grupo-grupo, hind, maganda. Kaya nakikita niyo we're coming out there with one voice.